Descriptive Cataloging and Rare Books - LAURA STALKER AND JACKIE M. DOOLEY
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Descriptive Cataloging and Rare Books
LAURA STALKER AND JACKIE M. DOOLEY
In this current era of belt-tightening in the American academ ic community, rare
book cataloging tends to catch the eye of li brary administrators desperate to cut costs.
Shrinking budgets and bloated backlogs demand that staff chum out as many
serv iceable bibliographic records as possible, and there is widespread interest in
simplifying cataloging practice in the direction of more limited description and fewer
formalized access points. Cataloging simplification is in the aiL ' [n such a climate, it
is difficult enough to justify paying skilled staff to create lengthy and elaborate catalog
records for rare books; devoting hours of professional time to revising the rare book
cataloging code may seem even more self-indulgent.
With such a bleak reality very much in mind, the authors of this paper present their
view of the recent revision of BibiioKraphic Description of Rare Books (BDRB)' We
desc ribe some of the ideas that we brought to the revision process, including ourdesire
to make rare book cataloging a more straightforward process without sacrificing the
clarity or usefulness of the resuiting bibliographic records. Let us waste no time
revealing the happy ending: simplification and effecti veness coincide nicely in the
context of rare book cataloging, and we believe that progress has been achieved toward
the goal of making rare book cataloging both more effective and more affordable.
[n thi s paper we also outline the process which led to the revision of BDRB and
describe changes to the rules which resuited, now entitled Descriptive Cora/oR inK of
Rare Books (DCRB ).' We conclude with a consideration of possible future activity in
thi s area.
Laura Stalker is Assistant Director for Bibliographical Projects at the Center for Bibl iographical
Studies and Research, University of Ca lifornia. Ri versi de, and Jackie M . Dooley is Head of
Collcct ion't Catalog ing at the Getty Center for the H istory of Art and the Humanities, Santa Monica,
Ca liforn ia. As prescnt and past chairs, respect ive ly. o f the RBMS Bibliographic Standards
Committee, Lau ra Sta lker and Jack ie M. Dooley played a prominent role in the revision of BORB.
This article represents the authors' opinions: positions officially taken by the committee arc
explicitly identifi ed. The authors are grateful to rare book catalogers at the Uni vers ity of California.
Los Angeles, and the Uni versity of Michigan whose comments in infonnal discussions in 1989 were
instrumental in determining the direction of BORB revision.
78 RARE BOOKS & MANUSCRIPTS LlBRARIANSHIP
WHY REVISE BDRB?
In 1988, as AACR2 became "AACR2.5"4 and as the first revision ofISBO(A),' the
international descriptive code for rare books, was nearing completion, it became
apparent to members of the RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee (known as the
RBMS Standards Committee until 1989) that our national rare book cataloging code
was becoming outdated. BORB had been compiled and published by the Library of
Congress in 1981 as a response to the adoption of AACR2 (1978) and the publication
of the first ISBO(A) (1980). The interdependence of AACR2 and BORB was
emphasized in the preface to BORB, where the latter is described as "the Library of
Congress' interpretation of AACR2 Chapter 2 for its own cataloging of older printed
materials" and as "supplementary to AACR2.'" Scrutiny of all codes supplementary to
AACR2 was warranted by the 1988 revision; additionally, the enthusiastic participation
of the Bibliographic Standards Committee in the international review of ISBO(A)
established the momentum for the committee's involvement in the revision of BORB.'
Also influencing the committee's press for revision was the fact that rare book
catalogers had accumulated almost ten years' experience with BDRB and increasingly
were voicing a desire to see it updated. The committee received a steady flow of inquiries
regarding the possibility of LC "rule interpretations" for BDRB, or perhaps a list of
corrections to be published in the Cataloging Service Bulletin. Furthermore, the staff
of two international bibliographical projects-the Eighteenth-Century Short Title
Catalogue (ESTC) and the North American Imprints Program (NAIp)8-had amassed
extensive experience working with large bodies of comparative data drawn from the
rare book collections of more than 500 North American libraries, and this experience had
demonstrated the virtues and vices of the various rare book cataloging rules, particularly with
regard to matching holdings of contributing libraries to existing bibliographic records.
Early in 1989, the committee informally surveyed American rare book catalogers
to determine whether the need for revision seemed serious enough to warrant the effort
and expense of producing a new edition. Dozens of catalogers responded, and
enthusiasm for a new edition ran high, despite widespread sentiment that BORB was
generally a very effective code. A number of respondents described, for example, their
confusion regarding treatment of early letter forms, frustration with inconsistencies in
transcription rules, and a desire to see editorial errors remedied and an index to the
rules added. In June of the same year, the Library of Congress expressed its need to
reprint or republish BORB, agreed that some changes were necessary, and readily
accepted the committee's offer of assistance.
At the outset, committee members felt that a revision limited to correcting minor
errors or a piecemeal examination of particular rules taken out of context would not
suffice. Rather, it seemed necessary that the entire process be informed by a coherent
view of the purpose of rare book cataloging, distilled from the needs of experienced
rare book catalogers. The ten recommendations (see Appendix I) adopted by the
committee at the January 1990 ALA Conference broadly represented the needsDESCRIPTIVE CATALOG ING AND RARE BOOKS 9
expressed by this community. During 1990, committee members produced a variety
of discussion papers, the Library of Congress distributed two draft revi sions for
wides pread comment, and catalogers throu ghout the Anglo-American cataloging
community ex pressed their needs and views eloquentl y and in detail.
THE NATURE AND PURPOSE OF RARE BOOK CATALOGING
Two basic assumptions figured prominently in the committee' s thinking. The first was
that a rare book cataloging code should be dri ven by the characteristics of early printed
books (i.e., books printed during the hand-press peri od) even though such a code may
be used to describe any book. This had been implicitly acknowledged in BDRB 's
statement of scope and purpose' and by the fact that virtually all of the examples in
BDRB were take n from books printed before 1801.
The second assumption was that harmony among related and analogous catalog-
ing codes is desirable. The genealogical and analogical relationships among AACR2,
ISBD, ISBD(A), and BDRB, as well as the significance of contradictions among them,
were repeatedly debated; as a result, an expanded discussion of these relationships was
included in the revised preface, which explains that DCRB owes its greatest allegiance
to AACR2, the "parent" American cataloging code. '"
Once these ass umptions were articulated, the committee worked to establish a
principled framework by defining the purpose of a descriptive cataloging code for rare
books. Cataloging is essentially a practical activity and cannot be considered in
isolation from the desired product and its use; therefore, a separate descriptive code
for rare books, and each particular rule wi thin it, can be justified onl y if it results in
catalog records that are used in ways that general catalog records for books are nol.
The code on which BDRB was based, AACR2, is gene rally taken as an allempt
to fulfill the classic objectives of the catalog as defined by Culler and revised by
Lubetzky. To justify the ex istence of a set of rules for rare books and to determine its
shape, the comminee identified two additional special objecti ves that such a code
might be expected to fulfill:
I. To enable the precise identifi cation of books on the basis of characteristics that
do not relate solely to the works or tex ts they contain; and
2. To justify and ex plai n access points which allow the user to identify books which
possess these intellectual and physical characteristics.
The fulfillment of the second special objective does not require any theoretical
departure from the provisions of AACR2; "anchoring" access points in the descriptive
portion of tile record is part of ordinary cataloging practice. The types of special access
points traced in rare book cataloging (suc h as ge nres, bindings, graphic processes,
printing and publishing characteristi cs, and provenance information), however, are
largely unknown in ge neral cataloging. Their choice and formulation, as well as the
notes describing them, ofte n demand considerable scholarship and bibliographical
sophistication, producing a res ult which may appear overly lengthy and full of arcaneIO RARE BOOKS & MANUSCRIPTS LIBRARIANS HIP
vocabulary to most users of the catalog. But there is no principled difference between
such records and "plain vanilla" AACR2 records; the logical relationship between
description and access is the·same.
On the other hand, the fulfillment of the first special objective, that of identifica-
tion, requires something beyond elaboration of analogous AACR2 rules, because the
object of description for rare books is not the same. A number of writers have observed
that defining exactly what a catalog record represents is a slippery business-works,
texts, publishing units, and individual copies are inevitably conflated." Although
AACR2 does provide a simple bibliographic description of a particular nonunique
physical item, its underlying purpose is to enable the user to identify works and
versions of works.
BORB gave similar status to identifying both publishing units and individual
copies of physical objects, which are described, uniquely identified, and placed in
relation to one another. 12 BORB included rules that had no equivalent in AACR2,13 and
in general was clearly intended to "enable different works and different editions of the
same work to be readily identified,"as is ISBO(A). 14 It can be maintained that the
fundamental difference between AACR2 and BORB is that the object of description
is essentially different; i.e., that BORB was designed to describe pre-1801 books
printed by hand. It is more accurate, however, to say that BORB was designed to
describe books about which a certain judgment regarding the bibliographical and/or
artifactual value has been made, and that this judgment most often is made about books
printed before 1801.
Some may take the extreme position that all books should be so privileged, that
all are unique objects to be valued on all possible levels rather than serving as neutral
carriers of texts which may be transferred intact from one vessel to another." This
position implies that all books are equally suitable candidates for description under
rules that draw attention to the book as a physical object as well as to the text it contains.
In the real world, however, such judgments are reserved for a small minority of books.
Additionally, judgments vary over time and among individual institutions and their
catalogers, and this variance creates tension within the catalog. A particular copy may
be treated differently as intellectual fashions change, or two copies of a single edition
(two objects which most people would refer to as the "same book") may be treated
differently by two catalogers at different institutions.
The object of description exists in a network of relationships with similar objects.
The accepted categories of edition, issue, impression, and state" define the object's
position in the rare book world, just as the concepts of "authorship" and "work" (as
exemplified in AACR2 by main entry and uniform title) determine an item's place in
the universe of authors and their works. One of the most commonly drawn distinctions
between bibliography and library cataloging is that the former requires the comparison
of several copies and describes no one copy, while the latter is based on a single copy."
In an era of shared catalogs and national databases, however, no catalog record canDESCR IPTIVE CATALOGING AND RARE BOOKS II
be said to identify completely the object it represents without an indication of that
object 's place in its bibliographical "family ," and that place cannot be determined
without comparison of copies.
Books cataloged under rare book rules seldom leave their home institutions and
often cannot be photocop ied, so copies usually cannot be directly compared; catalog
users must rely on surrogates for comparison and identi fication. For some earl y books,
descriptions in published bibliographies serve this purpose, but for the vast majority,
records in sha red catalogs provide the onl y basis for comparison. Clearl y all possible
points of diffe rence between bibliographical entities cannot be predicted and provided
for in a rare book catalog record, but the experience of large cooperati ve projects such
as EST C and NAIP has shown that close transcription of title page info rmati on ofte n
reveals unrecorded editions and provides a clue to substantive tex tual variations.
This argument for the closest possible transcription of the title pages of earl y
books is not based on any bibliographical principle; the word ing, spelling, and
punctuation of title page information by no means reveals these distinctions in all
cases. Faithful transcription often serves thi s purpose, however, and since title page
information must be transcribed in any case, it should be as fa ithful as possible and
serve thi s additional purpose whe re and when it can . It may be argued that this
approach is necessary only in cases where variants exist, but this position contains an
essential fl aw: variants can be discovered only by means of comparison. The discovery
of hitherto unknown va riants is part of the dail y routine of large cooperative
bibliographic projects, and this is made possible in large part by uniform catalogin g
treatment of all items in a database.
It is important to note that faith ful transcription does not necessaril y entail
le ngthier transcription or a more complex catalog record. In fact, the seeming paradox
of faithful transcription is that it both prov ides an accurate " picture" of the object and
is simpler to learn and prac tice than the transposition and normali zation mandated by
ISBO and AACR2. Thus, the cleaner the transcripti on, the more straightforward the
cataloging effort, and the more effecti vely the rare book catalog record ful fills the
Objecti ve of identification.
A turning po int in the authors' thinking about the revision of BORB was the
realization that the two parameters along which rare book records most typically differ
from " regular" records, namely fullness and fai thfulness, bear no necessary relation-
ship to one another. Rathe r, each is directl y related to one of the special Objecti ves of
the ra re book catalog: fullness is the result of providing and justifying special access
points, and fa ithfulness leads to precise identification of bibliographic entities and
individual physical objects. Hence, the fulfillment of the fi rst special objective
(precise identi ficat ion) should not lead to increased cataloging costs, and in fact, as
pointed out above, can result in savings.
Simplicity of application and the Objective of precise identification coincide in yet
anothe r way . BORB included numerous options in order to all ow li braries fl exibility12 RARE BOOKS & MANUSCRIPTS L1BRARIANSHIP
in describing unique collections and serving specialized constituencies, but in an
environment of shared records , a wide range of descriptive options impedes identifi-
cation. For example, BORB rule OE provided three different punctuation options for
transcribing the same title page, and rule 40 I instructed catalogers to record imprint
dates using arabic numerals, with the option of transcribing roman dates as they
appear, followed by the same date converted to arabic numerals and enclosed in square
brackets. Such options make it impossible to reconstruct what was actually printed by
viewing a catalog record, and the authors felt that eliminating them would render the
record less ambiguous and the code more straightforward. The degree to which such
problems were remedied is described below.
INTERNAL CONSISTENCY AND HARMONY AMONG RELATED CODES
Although one of the committee's basic assumptions was that the revision process
should be guided by a principled approach, the financial and practical constra,nts
within which most catalogers work were never forgotten . In this vein, faithful
transcription and consistent application of options contribute to both fulfillment of the
first special Objective (precise identification) and simplification of the cataloging
process. Oetermining what information to convey in a rare book record often requires
research skill and scholarly knowledge, but there is no reason why cataloging per se
(i .e., arrangement of the results of observation and research in a standardized format)
should be difficult; it should be a straightforward process, and cataloging rules should
be easy to read and apply.
Furthermore, common sense tells us that the more the rules are riddled with
exceptions and inconsistencies, the more difficult they are to apply. As the committee
examined the text of BORB with revisers' eyes, a number of inconsistencies surfaced
within and among rules, and it was concluded that such inconsistencies should be
eliminated wherever possible. Most were in the rules governing transcription from the
title page; the rules governing collation and notes did not in general present such problems.
The revision team's success in resolving these issues is discussed later in this paper.
Just as internal consistency was necessary, so too was harmony with the descrip-
tive codes with which BORB has a family relationship. As cited earlier, BORB is
considered a "supplement" to or "interpretation" of AACR2, Chapter 2. As such, BORB
may provide for fuller and more faithful descriptions of books than does AACR2, but in
principle it must stay within the larger code's basic framework of areas and elements
and must retain the standardized ISBO punctuation which defines that framework.
This greatly influenced the original authors of BORB, so the rules were kept in
harmony with AACR2 in this general sense. On a more pragmatic level, it seems safe
to say that most North American catalogers come to the rare book rules already
familiar with AACR2 and use it regularly to describe modem special collections
materials, so basic inconsistencies between AACR2 and BORB would have been a
major impediment to training catalogers."DESC RIPTIVE CATALOGING AND RARE BOOKS 13
The relationship between ISBO(A) and BORB is a more di stant one, and was less
clear at the outset of the revision process. ISBO is intended as the general frame work
within which national codes such as AACR2 are constructed, and ISBO(A) is its
extension for rare books. The nature of the relationship between ISBO(A) and BORB
surfaced as discrepancies between corresponding rules in ISBO(A) and AACR2 were
identified. and the committee wondered which way BORB should tum . The Library of
Congress informed us that this was not a debatable issue, since it is LC policy that
BORB must follow the nat ional code-AACR2-in cases of conflict with ISBO(A).
Significant inconsistencies were nonetheless debated, and some changes were
made in cases where connict with AACR2 was not at issue. lnconsistencies between
OC RB and ISBO(A) which remain, however, include differences in prescribed source
of information for the edition statement, variations in transcription of early letter
forms. the ISBO(A) requirement for a note describing the punctuation convention
used, and more stringent requirements in ISBO(A) for notes regarding transposition.
One inconsistency not discussed was a bas ic variation in fonnul ation of the physical
description area: OCRB places the bibliographic format last, while ISBO(A) places
it before the expression of dimensions. This difference seemed relatively unimportant,
since the same data appear in the record, albeit in a slightly diffe rent location.
There remains an argument to be made for an international standard for rare book
cataloging particularl y for book s publi shed be fore the establishment of the present
national boundaries when an international Latinate culture still determined the form
and content of printed books in Eu rope and America. Perh aps even more pressing is
the fact that just as use of US MARC and the establishment of a de facIo national
database have necessitated the development of numerous bibliographic standards, so
do recent de velopment s in other parts of the world- from the invasion of Europe by
the U.S. bibliographic utilities to the formation of the European Community-suggest
the wi sdom of putting international standards in place as rapidly as poss ible. European
books printed before 180 I have had two centuries and more to move around, and
substantial collections arc to be found in countries other than those of their origin.
There is also the more pragmati c consideration that the corpus of printing in Europe
before 180 I constitutes a large but finite body of material, and a comprehensive
database of such books, following a single descripti ve standard, is imaginable. As
Briti sh and other European libraries automate and make decisions about adoption of
ex isting rare book cata loging codes such as OCRB and ISBO(A)," time will tell what
progress can be made on thi s fro nt.
DESCRIPTIVE CATALOGING OF RARE BOOKS
To what extent were these various assumptions and concerns addressed in Descriptive
Calaiogillg of Rare Books (OCRB ), the rules which emerged from the revision
process? And not to forget our opening premise, how has rare book cataloging been
rende red more straightforward and effective? Improved layout and typograph y alone14 RARE BOOKS & MANUSCRIPTS LlBRARIANSHIP
should make a big difference to weary catalogers. but more substantive changes
abound. As stated earlier. the committee felt that any substantive rule revision should
lead to a code that would be more internally consistent than was BORB, that would
better fulfill the two special objectives of precise identification and expanded access
to special features, and that would be in closer harmony with ISBO(A).
Significant strides were made in the direction of ease of use and consistent
application of rules; many rules were reworded for greater clarity with no substantive
change in meaning. The notorious rule DH (on transcription of early letter forms) is
perhaps the most prominent example of clearer wording, but others such as the
reorganized rule 402 (on transcription of dates requiring adjustments or additions) are
equally improved.
Greater simplicity also was achieved by eliminating some internal inconsisten-
cies. An example is found in BORB rule 4Dl, which called for the silent omission of
words and phrases such as "Printed in the year" or "Anno" appearing in the imprint,
while the more general rule for recording imprint information instructed the cataloger
to indicate all omissions with ellipses. DCRB improves upon this by requiring
inclusion of such words and phrases, thereby both eliminating the inconsistency and
improving the accuracy of the transcription. In another case, BDRB rules 4A2, 4C6,
and 4C 13 confused catalogers who felt these rules contradicted each other with regard
to treatment of complex publisher statements from different sources of information.
In DCRB. the situation is made clear in revised rules4A2and 4C6(4C13 was dropped).
A third example is BDRB rule DE (Punctuation), which was difficult to read and
contained various inconsistencies in recording of punctuation and use of ellipses. For
example, the rule stated: " Do not transcribe a mark of punctuation that precedes the
mark of omission unless it is a mark of abbreviation or of final punctuation (e.g., a
period or a question mark)." In DCRB this sentence was dropped; the decision is left
to the cataloger' s judgment. This change eliminates an apparently meaningless
exception and thereby simplifies the rule; on the other hand, users of OCRB records
will not know whether or not the mark of punctuation preceding an ellipsis has been
dropped.
BDRB Rule DE was also identified as a rule in which the choice of options (three
in this case) could admit ambiguity and thus impede identification. In DCRB , the
number of options has been reduced to two. Another case, noted above, in which the
options obscured identification, was not altered: DCRB rule4D2 (formerly BORB rule
4D I) still allows omission of the literal transcription of roman dates and uniform
transcription of all dates in arabic numerals, however they appear on the title page.
In their comments on BDRB rule IA2, catalogers expressed widespread interest
in being allowed to use ellipses to indicate omission of pious invocations and other
"non-title" information. LC would not allow this, since it violates rule OE's prohibition
against use of ellipses to represent omission of information "that is not considered part
of any area." The wording of IA2 was loosened up a bit. however, to give catalogersDESCRIPTIV E CATALOGING AND RARE BOOKS 15
more latitude in delennining under what circum stances such information is part of the
title and must be either recorded or represented by an ellipsis.
BORB's tendency not to require notes describing transpos ition of title page
e lements hindered identification , since absence of such notes makes it impossible to
reconstru ct the appearance of the tiile page. BORB rul e 2C2 requi red a note whenever
a statement of responsibility is transposed from a position following the edition statement,
but rules IB I (elements preceding the tiile proper), IG3 (statements of responsibility
preceding the title proper), 2B7 (edition statements), and 2C3 (statements of respon-
sibi lity rel ati ng to edition) call fo r transposit ion notes only "if desired." Making all
such notes mandatory would not onl y promote consistency within the code, but wo uld
enhance the identification function of the resulting records and wo uld confonm more
closely to [SBO(A). Some progress was achieved in that OCRB req uires notes for all
transpositions of title and statement of responsibility data (rules IB I and IG3).
BORB rul es for constructing notes (Area 7) we re studied with a view to better
fulfillment of the second special objecti ve, that of explaining and justifying special
access points. A committee subgroup found that the ex isting provisions were en-
tirely adeq uate, s ince they allow catalogers considerable latitude in composing any
appropriate or necessary note. They did suggest minor wording changes intended to
give extra emphasis to the existence of the RBMS thesauri and other specialized
vocabulary lists. Also, rule 7C6 on authorship notes was revised and expanded in order
to draw atten tion to the frequency of anonymo us and pseudonymous publication in
earlier books and to the need to exercise special care in the case of attributed
aut ho rship.
Numerous other changes, both major and minor, were made in the rul es. A brief
list of the mo re significant changes is give n in the preface to DCRB.'o
As the original ten committee recommendations clearly indicate (see Appendix
I, below), catalogers yearned for more th an a set of descriptive rules; they wanted
advice on access points, serials, MARC cod ing, and minimal-level cataloging, as we ll
as a concordance with AACR2, a set of cataloging examples, and a bibliography of
cataloging tools, all within the covers of BORB. In short, they longed for a rare book
cataloging manual.
OCRB delivered most of the extra features that were requested (see Appendi x II
below for a list of OCRB appendixes), and although purists may scoff at such add itions
to a descripti ve cataloging code, each OCRB appendix further simplifies rare book
cataloging by providing a useful new tool or eliminating the need for a previously
separate one.
More re liable access to tiile variants should resu lt from the guidelines in Appendix
A, and the mysteries of early letter fonm transcription will, one hopes, be lessened by
a thorough reading of Appendix B. The serials guidelines in Appendix C have been
adopted by CONSER. For those libraries driven by economic exigencies (and the
magnitude of arrearages) to reducing cataloging time, the minimal-level cataloging16 RARE BOOKS & MANUSCRIPTS LlBRARIANSHIP
guidelines in Appendix D will encourage creation of brief records that meet the
identification objective of rare book cataloging. Use of Appendix E will make coding
of US MARC field 040, subfield e, more consistent, and therefore more meaningful.
And the concordance between DCRB and AACR2 rule numbers (Appendix F) should
ease the transition between codes for generalists who use DCRB infrequently, as well
as simplifying the training of new rare book catalogers. Other additions to DCRB
include a brief list of rare book cataloging tools which appears in the preliminary
matter, and a detailed index. The latter was by far the most frequent ly requested
improvement.
The chief remaining lacuna is an extensive set of full-record cataloging examples.
Examples were eliminated from DCRB due to the substantial delay this wou ld have
imposed on the publication schedule, but the Bibliographic Standards Commiltee has
begun work to address this need.
One way to measure the extent to which the revision team accomplished the
task it set for itself is to examine the fate of the committee's len original recommen-
dations (see Appendix I). Recommendations I (title change), V (explanation of Ihe
relationships among BDRB, AACR2, and ISBD(A)), VI (an AACR2 concordance), and
vn (guidance in the use of US MARC field 040) were fully realized as originally
envisioned.
Other recommendations were at least partially implemented. Recommendation
VIII, suggesting the establishment of levels for rare book calaloging, led to the creation
of guidelines for minimal-level rare book records (Appendix D), but this recommen-
dation would have been more completely fulfilled if an "exact transcription" level of
description had been created. 21 Recommendation IX listed four categories of possible
additions to the publication; two (parts a and d) were deemed suilable for inclusion in
DCRB and two (parts b and c) were not, but Ihere are plans underway to address these
desiderata through appropriate means.
Recommendations II and III involved substantive rule changes focusing on
transcription issues, and the degree to which they were implemented was discussed
above. Although the authors feel that the objective of precise identification would have
been more fully realized by additional changes, the changes that were made do
contribute to a more faithful transcription. Perfect consistency in transcription practice
was not achieved, but progress was made; as a consequence, DCRB should be simpler
to apply than was BDRB.
Recommendation IV, which called for the elimination of options, was not
adopted; catalogers did not want to be deprived of the freedom and flexibility thaI the
options allow, given the wide variety in situations found in early printed books,
broadsides, and other materials chosen for treatment under DCRB. One option was
eliminated, however, as mentioned earlier: the portion of rule OE governing the
transcription of punctuation was simplified, and the three options formerly available
were reduced to two in order to reduce ambiguity.DESCRIPTIVE CATALOGING AND RARE BOOKS 17
Recommendation X asked that a mechanism be established for regular and
ongoing review of BORB. Although this issue was not formally resolved, the well-
publicized success of the revision project seems to have led to greater recognition at
LC, and perhaps in the cataloging community at large, of the needs of rare book
catalogers; the appearance of various rule interpretations and guidelines pertaining to
rare materials appearing in recent issues of the Ca lalog ing Service Bulletin are onc
indication of thi s. We hope that this instance of successful collaboration between the
Library of Congress and the Bibliographi c Standards Committee is the beginning of
a productive long-term relationship.
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
Many other issues were raised by the surveys and pu blic discussions that accompanied
the rev ision process. Some new and rev ised guidelines were judged inappropriate for
inclusion in OCRB proper and already have appeared elsewhere." Others are in
preparation, while some re main desiderata. In addition to the handbook of examples
already mentioned, many other topics have been discussed in committee, including
work on uniform titles for early works, descriptive standards for sheet music and
broadsides, and forms of heading for early printers. Some of these issues surely will
be addressed during the coming decade. And as mentioned earlier, time will tell
whether progress will be made toward creation of an international rare book cataloging
code.
Another idea that has ge nerated committee interest is a research project on the use
of rare book records, particularly descriptive data. Most of the library literature on the
use of catalogs focuses on access points; there is relatively little written on how users
employ the descriptions that catalogers go to so much trouble to constru ct in either rare
book or general catalog records.'·' It might be said that proposing such a study after
revising the rules is a bit backwards, since it would have been an appropriate prelude
to the theoretically based revision of the rules that the committee felt was desirable.
Much of the revision was based on conscious and unconscious assumptions about how
catalog records are used; unfo rtunately, it seems likely that the work was informed
more by knowledge of how librarians use records than by any real understanding of
how anyone else uses them.
The rare book cataloging communit y was thorou ghl y energized by the BDRB
rev ision process. Members of the Bibliographic Standards Committee became ac-
quainted wi th many know ledgeable colleagues who had not prev iously been involved
with committee activities or other national-level cataloging initiatives, and our hopes
are high that their interest in working to develop and improve rare book cataloging
standards will not wane. We welcome and encourage all efforts to debate, research,
and publish stimulating ideas on a broad range of topics related to modem standards
for bibliographic control of rare books and special collections materials. Our profes-
sion and the users it serves will be much the ri cher fo r it.18 RARE BOOKS & MANUSCRIPTS LlBRARIANSHIP
APPENDIX I: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BDRB REVISION
The following ten recommendations were adopted by the RBMS Bibliographic
Standards Committee at its January 1990 meeling. They were intended to guide the
BORB revision team, both providing guidance on specific assignments and giving
overall direction to the project. As discussed above, some were fully incorporated in
OCRB, some partially, and some not at all.
I. That the title of BORB be changed to Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Books to
clarify that it is a set of rules for cataloging, not bibliographic description proper.
II. That substantive rule changes be made to increase faithfulness to the object.
This applies primarily to transcription from the title page, where transposition,
omission, normalization, and interpolation should be kept to a minimum.
III. That conventions for transcription from the title page be made consistent
among the various areas, with the goal of easier and more reliable reconstruction of
the title page.
IV. That the options relating to transcription be eliminated, with the goal of greater
predictability among records.
V. That the purpose of BDRB and its relationship to AACR2 and ISBO(A) be
addressed in more detail in the introduction to a revised edition.
VI. That a concordance to the corresponding rules in AACR2 be incorporated into
the text of a revised edition.
VII. That guidance be provided for determining when a record should be coded
BORB (040 e) rather than AACR2. For example, a record which follows BORB rules
for transcription from the title page and physical description in fields 245, 250, 260,
and 300 might be coded BORB.
VIII. That suggested levels for rare book cataloging be developed analogous to
those found in AACR2. The minimum level should provide sufficient information to
fulfill objective (I). The levels may be defined by presence or absence of categories
of data (as in AACR2), as well as by the extent to which data are omitted within the
areas.
IX. That BORB be expanded to include: (a) guidelines for the description of rare
serials; (b) discussion of access issues of particular interest to rare book catalogers
(e .g., form of entry for early names, use of thesauri developed by this committee); (c)
MARC-tagged examples of catalog records for materials in various formats, including
broadsides and serials; and (d) a bibliography of other rare book cataloging tools,
including the other RBMS thesauri and Standard Citation Forms for Rare Book
Cataloging. Alternatively, that the committee sponsor the preparation of a rare book
cataloging manual to be used with BDRB , and to include all of these items.
X. That a mechanism be established for ongoing review of BORB and issuance
of "rule interpretations" or corrections, as necessary.DESCRIPTIVE CATALOGING AND RARE BOOKS 19
APPENDIX II: LIST OF DCRB APPENDIXES
Appendix A: Title Access Points
In OCRB , titles generally are transcribed very much as they appear on the item,
without the degree of transposition and normalization that are characteristic of
AACR2 catalog records. Given the frequency of anonymous and pseudonymous
publication, the imperfect physical state, and the extensive use of early letter form s and
contractions all found in early printed books, added title access is of particular
importance. Thi s appendix serves to remind catalogers of situations which may call
for more generous title access than usually is provided under AACR2 .
Appendix B: Early Leller Forms
BORB rule OH, which gives directions for transcribing obsolete forms of letters,
as well as how to handle ilj and ulv when the AACR2 rules for capitalization call for
converting them to uppercase or lowercase, elicited more comments, complaints, and
questions than any other rule. The substance of the rule was not changed, but it was
rewritten for greater clarity, and Appendix B was added to give additional background
on early printing practices.
Appendix C: Rare Serials
The guidelines for rare serials, originally published in Cataloging Service Bulletin
26 (Fall 1984), were updated with the cooperation and approval of CONSER. The
revised guidelines cover not only descriptive conventions but also MARC format
provisions and guidance on linking related records and creating separate records for
individual issues of serial s.
Appendix D: Minimal-Level Records
This appendix is a response to widespread concern about large cataloging
arrearages in rare book and special collections libraries. While it is most desirable to
provide full description and access to rare materials, the committee recognized that
many rare book catalogers are compelled by circumstances to do at least some brief
cataloging of rare materials, and that it would be useful to have a guideline in place
that provides for records which fulfill the special objective of precise identification.
The alternatives of creating a guideline ad hoc within each institution or following
existing general guidelines for minimal-level cataloging are much less desirable.
Appendix E: DCRB Code jor Records
USMARC field 040 e indicates the descriptive cataloging code that was followed
in a catalog record . The decision to use the code "dcrb" in this field is usually
straightforward, but this appendix gives guidance for some ambiguous situations:
minimal-level cataloging, microforms of early printed books, rare serials, nonbook
materials, and what has come to be known as "special collections cataloging."20 RARE BOOKS & MANUSCRIPTS L1BRARIANSHIP
Appendix F: Concordance Between Rules in DCRB and AACR:!
This concordance was provided to assist the many catalogers who use both
descriptive codes, and should prove of particular assistance in training generalist
catalogers to use DCRB.
Appendix G: Glossary
This is an updated version of the BDRB glossary, which supplements the glossary
in AACR2. Of particular note in DCRB is the revised definition of "title page."
NOTES
I . For examples of recent publications on the subject of cataloging simplification ,
see David A. Smith, A Perspective on Cataloging Simplification (Washington, D.C.:
Library of Congress Cataloging Forum, 1991 ); and Dorothy Gregor and Carol Mandel,
"Cataloging Must Change!" Library Journal I J6:6 (April J, J991): 42-47.
2. Bibliographic Description ofRare Books: Rules Formulated under AACR:! and
ISBD(A) for the Descriptive Cacaloging of Rare Books and Other Special Printed
Materials (Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, J981).
3. Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Books, 2nd edition (Washington, D.C.: Library
of Congress, 1991). Prepared by a working group under the auspices of Office for
Descriptive Cataloging Policy, Library of Congress, and Bibliographic Standards
Committee of the Rare Books and Manuscripts Section, Association of College and
Research Libraries, American Library Association.
4. Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd edition, 1988 revision (Chicago: Ameri-
can Library Association, 1988). This is a revision of the original AACR2, the Anglo-
American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd edition (Chicago: American Library Association, 1978).
5. ISBD(A): International Standnrd Bibliographic Description for Older Mono-
graphic Publications (Antiquarian), second revised edition (Munich: K. G. Saur, 1991).
6. BDRB , p. vi.
7. In 1988 the International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA) invited the
American Library Association to review the revised draft of ISBD(A), and ALA
conveyed this request to the Resources and Technical Services Division (now the
Association for Library Collections and Technical Services). RTSD appointed its
Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access, the AACR2 oversight committee,
to handle the review, and invited RBMS participation. The section in tum asked the
Standards Committee to undertake the project. The two committees immediately
joined forces and conducted a productive joint review, returning numerous editorial
and substantive comments to IFLA.
8. The Eighteenth-Century Short Title Catalogue (ESTC) seeks to record all
institutionally owned copies of items printed in Britain or British possessions or in the
English language, 1701-1800; responsibility for North American imprints of the sameDESCR IPTIVE CATALOG ING AND RARE BOOKS 21
period was assigned to the No rth Ameri can Imprints Program (NAIP) at the American
Antiquarian Society. NA IP records are constructed according to BDRB ; ESTC has its
own cataloging rul es, which do not adhere to AACR2 or ISBD (The EighteellIh
Celllll ry Short Title Ca taloRue: The Catalog uing Rules, 199 1 Edition . Revised by J. C.
Zeeman. London: The British Library, 199 1). The two sets of records have been
successfull y combined in the ESTC database in RU N.
9. BDRB rule OA states: "These rules are based on the Anglo-American Catalogu-
illR Rules , second edition (AACR2 ) and on ISBD(A): International Standard Biblio-
graph ic Descriptioll/or Older Books (A ntiquarian). They are forthe description of an y
printed books, pamphlets, broadsides, and s ingle sheets requ iring special description.
There are three categories of materi al th at may be treated under these special rules. The
first of these is based on the date of printing of the publication: for example,
publications from count ries following European conventions in bookmaking often
need spec ial rules if they were printed before the 19th century. The second category
is based on the place of ori gin, particularl y when the publications are printed by hand
or by meth ods continuing th e traditi on of the hand-printed book. The third is based on
the administrative policy of the institution, which may choose to catalog some or all
of its holdings at a more detai led level of descri ption than that provided for in AACR2."
A footn ote to the next paragraph states LC' s policy of appl ying BDRB to books
published before 1801 and of ge nerall y us ing AAC R2 fo r later books.
10. DCRB , p. viii .
II. The class ic treatment of this problem is G. Thomas Tanselle, "Descriptive
Bibliography and Library Catalogu ing," Studies in Bibliow-aphy 30 ( 1977): I- 56. In
fact, it is to this article th at DCRB owes its new name, since Tanselle authoritati vely
draws the distincti on between bibliographic description and descripti ve cataloging.
12. That the distinctions among these various levels of description are routinely
confused was recentl y illustrated by LC's guidelines for special notes and access points
used in ["'are book cataloging (CataloxillR Sen'ice Bulletin 53 [Summer 199 1I, pp. 40-46).
Although both edition-specific data (e.g., terms for fo rm/genre and place of publication)
and copy-specific data (e.g., provenance notes and binding te rms) are discussed in detail,
the article is entitled simply "Copy-Specific Data Elements for Rare Books."
13. DCRB Append ix F (Concordance Between Rul es in DCRB and AACR2)
ex plic itl y lists all rules for which AACR2 has " nothing comparable." Examples
incl ude DCRB rul e 1F (si ngle sheet pu blications), 2B7 (transposing edi tion state-
ments), 4D3 (s uppl ying dates from reference works), and 5B4 (e rrata leaves).
14. IS BD(A), p. 2.
15. G. Tho mas Tanselle eloq uently arti culates this point of view in his recentl y
published Malkin lecture Lihraries, Mu seums, and Readill/i (New York: Columbia
Uni ve rsity School of Library Servi ce, 199 1).
16_ These four terms are defined in the DCRB Glossary (Appendix G).
17. Tanselle, "Descripti ve Bibliography and Library Cataloguing," p. 6.22 RARE BOOKS & MANUSCRIPTS LlBRARIANSHlP
18. In recognition of the importance of maintaining harmony with AACR2, the
committee invited ALA's Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access to
appoint a liaison to the BDRB revision effort, who kept CC:DA informed regarding
the committee's progress.
19. Following discussions at a meeting of American and British rare book
catalogers at ajoint conference of the ACRL Rare Books and Manuscripts Section and
the Library Association Rare Books Group in September 1989, various major institutions
in the U.K. expressed strong interest in adopting DCRB for automated rare book
cataloging; these included the National Library of Scotland and Oxford University.
20. DCRB, p. vi.
2!. In Discussion DocumentBDRB 6/90.B .6 ("Title page transcription," prepared
for discussion at ALA Conference, June 23-24, 1990), the authors suggested rewriting
and explicitly labeling rules with transcription-oriented options. For example, BDRB
rule 2B7 stated:
2B7. Transpose separable edition statements into the edition area from other parts
of the title page. If desired, make a note indicating this transposition.
The suggested change would have read instead:
2B7. Transpose separable edition statements into the edition area from other parts
of the title page.
OPTION: If desired, make a note indicating this transposition.
This technique would have assisted catalogers in locating the options scattered
throughout DCRB, thereby encouraging their use as a set. Furthermore, a rigorous
level of full description, corresponding to AACR2' s third level and requiring consis-
tent application of all the labeled options, could have been established. The discussion
paper suggested identifying this level by a distinctive code in USMARC field 040
(used to indicate the descriptive rules under which the record was created), thus
remedying to some extent the ambiguity that results from the existence of options. A
degree of cataloging simplification would have ensued as well, since the decision to
employ the options could be made once for the whole record rather than on a rule-by-
rule basis. This proposal was rejected however, due both to general lack of enthusiasm
on the part of catalogers and clear opposition from LC.
22. A recent Library of Congress rule interpretation discusses the forms ofheading
for persons who lived before the twentieth century (RI 22.19: "Distinguishing Terms,"
Cataloging Service Bulletin 53 [Summer 1991], p. 36-37); this LCRI was based on
Discussion Document BDRB 6/90.D.2. Another example is the article on LC policy
for special rare book data elements, referred to in footnote 12 above. Both of these
guidelines originally were proposed as DCRB appendixes, but since they comprise
Library of Congress policy, it was more appropriate to publish them in CSB.DESCRIPTIVE CATALOGING AND RARE BOOKS 23
23. For example, see Janet Swan Hill, "The Year's Work in Descriptive Catalog-
ing and ... ," Library Resources & Technical Services 32:3 (July 1988): 203: "It is not
uncommon for description or descri ptive cataloging (desc ription plus creation and
assignment of access points derived from the description) to be sparsely represented
in library literat ure. Except in times of descriptive code rev ision, when emotions and
literary output run high, subject analysis usually occupies a greater proportion of
catalogi ng literature. Even rarer than an article on description is reportage of actual
research on some descriptive topic."
OLD, FINE & RARE BOOKS
Sets Leather Bound Fine Bindings
Color Plate Children's & Illustrated
~.
APPRAISALS
r. ,\ 1\ '.-:',.
BOOKBINDING
IMPERIAL FINE BOOKS, INC.
..- CATALOG ISSUED
;';' " .
.~ ,... -~
l 790 Madison Avenue, 2nd Floor, NY, NY 10021 (2 12)861-6620 :i ~ID')"
. ~;p'
.\/\ .'
~ F,nl' and {({/r!' Books
' ~~'
BROWN ZIGGURAT PRESS
Brown Ziggurat Press announces the publication of Denise Levertov's collection of poems
entitled Range, commemorating the lOOth anniversary of women attending Brown University.
The papers used were Nidiggen, Mohawk and handmade Gastaldi. The cover cameo was designed
for this special event. The book is entirely hand-sewn, using a variation of an accordion fold. The
woodcut images were printed directly from the hand cut blocks by Walter Feldman.
The entire edition is limited to
100 copies. numbered 1 to 74,
and lettered AtoZ. The 74 num-
bered copies are signed by the
artist; the 26 lettered copies are
signed by both the artist and
the poet.
To purchase a copy, please send
your check (made payable to
Brown University Ubrary)to:
Numbered copies: $200 Ro6emary L. Cullen Denise
Lettered copies: $250 Cura",' " the Hams Collection Levertov
Shipping and handling: $12.50 John Hay Library
Box A, Brown University
Range
Providenre, RI CJ.l912.RARE BOOK
CATALOGUERJBmLIOGRAPHER
Unique opportunity for motivated individual. Well-
established bookstore specializing in rare books and
manuscripts seeks individual with background in
American, English, and/or Continental bibliography.
Knowledge of literary history, science, or western
intellectual history highly desirable. Some computer
and clerical skills required. Excellent verbal and
written communication skills essential.
This position offers significant potential for advance-
ment. Starting salary commensurate with experience;
commission bonus available.
Send cover letter, resume, and a list of three
references to:
The 19th Century Shop
1047 Hollins Street
Baltimore MD, 21223.
Bool:! and Ljbrltrier bought. Catalogues iJIlltd.ROCKWELL KENT Guide to Medieval
11
-
' . .
and Renaissance
Manuscripts in the
Huntington Library
by c. W. Dutschke
The Huntington LibnllY has one of {he
Now available: a one-time facsimile edi- fi nest co llections of medieval and
tion of 500 copies of the artises 1917 book, n:naissance manllscri(1t'i in the world.
The Jewel, a Roma1lce of Fairyland Some 390 m:muscripts have been
reexamined and are described with
• This book has never before been
full attention to tex tu al conte nt,
published. It contains seven original
physical c ha racteristics, and artistic
pen-and-ink drawings, of which the
decor-ation.
title-page illustration appears above.
Among items surveyed are 57 volumes
o Only a single hand-lettered original
of Middle English poetry and prose
was made for Hildegarde Hirsch of
(induding sllch treasures as [he ElIes·
New York, Kent's beautiful companion
mcre Ctmterhury Tales), 77 uecorJted
ofthat period,
Boo ks of H ours, 16 Bibles, 30 portohtn
• It is the earliest complete book writ- atiases, 20 volumes of English legal
ten and illustrated by Rockwell Kent. history, and manuscrip ts bound into
predating Wilderness by three years. int"unahLi b .
• Preface by Kenfs beloved widow,
"T hisYou can also read
